I
wasn't all that surprised that Amazon was number one on the "The
Best-Managed Companies of 2019" list that The Wall Street Journal published recently.
But I
did think to myself - I bet the result would be different if they had crowd sourced
their research. And in fact, the report
acknowledges that Amazon rates "below average on measures of social
responsibility." (Cutter, 2019)
I also
wondered about the four star rating in "Employee Engagement &
Development." I'm sure the
employees at Whole Foods who just lost their healthcare might have a few things
to say about that. And now apparently
there are safety issues in Amazon warehouses.
An advocacy group says injuries are three times higher than they are in similar
warehouses.
Coincidentally
the warehouse that is planning the rally has just handed out 6,000 Thanksgiving
meals, part of the $250,000 Amazon has donated to food banks in 2019. (SiLive,
2019)
Talk
about cognitive dissonance. How do
people process all that information?
Will they use short cuts? Which
ones? Which issues resonate the most? The positive or the negative? What about with other companies? Have you ever canceled a brand due to a clash
of values? Or adopted one?
Cutter,
C. (2019, November 22) The Best-Managed
Companies of 2019. wsj.com. Retrieved November
27, 2019, from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-managed-companies-of-2019and-how-they-got-that-way-11574437229
SiLive
(2019, Monday November 25) Amazon
Donates Dinners While Employees Protest Safety Issues. mediapost.com. Retrieved November 27, 2019, from
10 comments:
According to Nielsen, 66 percent of global consumers say they are willing to pay more for sustainable brands, and 73% of global Millennials are willing to pay extra for sustainable offerings(1). In a more recent report, Nielsen said 81 percent of global respondents thought companies should work to improve the environment, "and this passion for corporate social responsibility (CSR) is shared across gender lines and generations"(2). Based on this alone, I'd assume that most people would process the news about how Amazon treats their workers seriously. But does that make them actually change their habits?
The cognitive dissonance does complicate things. Does the fact that they handed out Thanksgiving meals (even while getting injured doing so) outweigh the bad? I think even though the majority of consumers say they care about corporate responsibility, convenience can outweigh values. I think some people will process this news in a way that lets them justify the way workers were treated with the company's charitable efforts. Will people cancel Amazon because of this? Not millennials, I'd bet: despite Amazon's less-than-perfect record, they're reported to be the top brand for millennials (Business Insider, 2019).
Will Gen Z? I doubt it; they will not remember a time when Prime wasn't an option. I have faith in boomers for responding to this, though. As the second-smallest age group to shop online after the silent generation(3), they might have the ability to pare down on Amazon use without it upsetting their way of life.
I have cancelled a few brands due to a clash of values: Urban Outfitters for its Republican-leaning leaders who market to young hipsters; The Gap (and its sister companies Old Navy and Banana Republic) for its especially bad sweatshop reputation. Also I don't buy Chiquita Bananas because of their poor working conditions for farmers(4), opting instead for fair trade bananas. This gets me thinking, though ... plenty of other brands support terrible labor conditions, and I am opting for convenience and a blind eye over cancelling them.
Where's the line that makes the negative outweigh the positive and gets people changing their habits? It depends on how willing they are to give up convenience.
(1) https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/report/2015/the-sustainability-imperative-2/
(2) https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/podcast/2019/can-corporate-citizenship-be-good-for-communities-and-the-bottom-line/
(3) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/12/19/online-shopping-and-purchasing-preferences/
(4) https://hbr.org/podcast/2019/07/the-controversial-history-of-united-fruit
I did not feel any surprise when I read Amazon has been the most of dangerous Employers. I think this issue was the result of the size and industry of Amazon. It is very common among the other companies. Many people even sudden death due to the high-pressure work face. In the other words, the problem was possibly overestimated. For example, there more than 13, 000 people were dead from mining this year. However, the death was not able to generate any traffic if it is published on the newspaper. Besides, the death incident is varied by different standing points.
As on the employee perspective, they already known what they need to work/ face on every day when they interviewed the job. In my opinion, they automatically accepted the potential riskiness although no one really want to face the dangerous.
As on the employer perspective, they are doing everything they could to save the money on the human resources and improve the core competition, which is technology. Per economy standing, employer only need to pay what the real worth for the general staff. Under this incident, we can conclude Amazon did not care about their most basic workers.
As the third-party person, I feel depressed whenever I saw this kind of information. In my deep heart, I thought they were the kind companies because the public information indicate the goods things they did to the environment. The brilliant CSR is a perfect idea for them to showcase and improve the public relations. I think I will be resonated by the poor incident after graduation because it can set up the mental connection with me and the worker.
It made me question about Amazon. If I keep ordering products from Amazon, I may become a part of process to hurt these lower worker. If I stop ordering, they may even become worse since they may lose their jobs due to the decrease of orders. During my past life, I barely think about the real company insight.
https://www.theworldcounts.com/counters/environmental_effect_of_mining/health_effects_of_mining
It would be very easy for people to make the shortcut between on the one hand Amazon neglecting their employee's safety working conditions and on the other, Amazon handing out Thanksgiving meal. It doesn't take too long to think: what if this is just a communication strategy to regain's people trust.
Personally, I wasn't surprised reading about the working conditions at Amazon. I remember watching this documentary a couple of years ago (link below) about this Amazon employee who hurt her back because of the poor working conditions and ended up becoming homeless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvdyxXhVNRE
I firmly believe instead of doing external communication to promote themselves, Amazon should really work internally on how to enhance their employee's working conditions. Not only this will be beneficial's to the brand's image but it is well known that employees who are happier will be more productive.
(Forbes happy employees are 20% more productive --https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/12/13/promoting-employee-happiness-benefits-everyone/#1146747c581a)
Lastly, I personally never started or stopped using a brand because of how it behaves. If we start thinking like this, we might as well stop consuming at all. Wether it's clothing brands (Nike, Adidas, H&M, Zara) luxury/jewelries (LVMH, Kering) food-chains (McDonald's, KFC) or food delivery services (Uber Eats, Deliveroo) - all of the brands cited above have been part of scandals concerning their employee's working conditions in the past 5 years.
Allan C.
The most commonly considered factor when determining a company's ethics (by Consumers) is employee treatment (48 percent), as described in Mintel's North America 2016 Consumer Trends. That is dependent upon how many consumers have knowledge of the employee transgressions. It the case of Amazon, it seems more and more of this knowledge is being shared. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/56-of-americans-stop-buying-from-brands-they-believe-are-unethical-300181141.html
An investigative reporter from PRN stated "Well, we found broadly that the drive to fulfill orders quickly is injuring, you know, hundreds, thousands of workers at a very - at very high injury rates. In this particular case, the problem seemed to be that he wasn't properly trained. That's what the OSHA inspector said. Not many people know that level of detail. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/27/783223343/amazon-warehouse-employees-face-serious-injuries-report-says
Amazon seems to be doing everything to project happy workers under the guise of hiring new ones and the holiday spirit. It seems Amazon wants us to think through their commercials that their workers are singing their way through work and are totally grateful for their company benefits. There are currently two distinct campaigns running to convince consumers of this.
Despite Amazon's efforts, if the dull roar of untrained workers and unreasonable pick and pack quotas becomes loud enough, consumers will reassess their loyalty. Unfortunately for Amazon workplace illness and injuries are holding steady for the rest of the industry according to the Department of Labor, not growing as it seems for Amazon. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh.nr0.htm
Amazon workers are rallying over high injury rates. Does it matter to consumers?
Summary
Amazon a billion-dollar company was known to be the best managed company in 2019 however the company lacked measures of social responsibility. In particular , Amazon warehouses was reported to have many safety issues and a advocacy group said that injuries at the warehouse are three times more than similar warehouses. Amazon has taken apart of a holiday initiative where they have donated $250,000 to food banks in 2019 , one of the warehouses rallying against Amazon’s social responsibility also participated in this food drive.
Response
In this example, the lack of social responsibility that Amazon has towards its warehouse workers shows the perception of these Amazon workers. The irony of the good deed that Amazon did by donating more than $250,00 to food banks while their employees are protesting based on unfavorable working conditions. However, as a fortune 500 company, employees recognize the status that comes with working for a known company. Workers face these unpleasant circumstances they have chosen for insufficient reward, adjusting their mindset and perceptions to be aligned with their choice and behaviors. In response to these unfair work conditions, Amazon workers protested against being granted longer break periods, especially during holiday peak seasons. When thinking of Amazon's convenient 2-day shipping as a consumer, it doesn't cross your mind that these Amazon employees may be mistreated, overworked, and taken advantage of as a worker. Though news of the companies' wrongdoing went viral, it hasn't made enough noise to show a drop in sales.Recently the company was named the Best Managed Companies of 2019 by the Wall Street Journal. Reading this article makes me more aware of the importance of knowing a company's brand value and the treatment of workers. As an avid online shopper, I try to consider this when buying online to warehouse companies.
LH
It may be a cynical outlook on human behavior, but I think people will overlook the struggles of Amazon factory workers, because it will further lend to their cognitive dissonance. People will employ cognitive biases (consciously or subconsciously) to diminish the psychological distress brought on by this ethical dilemma. We know that we should be altruistic and care about the working conditions of others, but that’s difficult to do when we benefit greatly from the source, so we’re left to make a choice between quick and easy access to endless products or depriving ourselves of that in favor of better conditions for people who aren’t us. I believe most people will choose the former. Whether we choose to ignore the issue completely or rationalize the negatives away, (most) people will be in favor of what’s best for them personally.
I think positive issues resonate with us the most, because no one likes to feel bad about anything viewed as good (halo effect). If a “good” company does bad, it’s okay, because the good they’ve done outweighs the bad (vice versa for “bad” companies). For example, people may think that Amazon doesn’t treat their employees the best, but they did give a lot to the surrounding community and they provide great service, so they get a pass. I have canceled brands due to a clash of personal values, ranging from racial issues to poor customer service, the more dire the situation, the easier it was to make my decision with an additional caveat being that they were replaceable and/or their products weren’t necessities.
Personally, I have never stopped wearing or using brands that have poor values or values that I did not believe. The reason being is because when the product is so good the consumer tends to turn a blind eye to everything else. A great example of this is how Apple treats its workers in China. In the warehouses where they create iPhones, there have been photographs taken where one can see suicide nets right outside the window that way when someone wants to commit suicide they will be caught. The reason why Apple has set up these suicide nets is that so many innocent hard-working people have tried to kill themselves. This tragic reality is something everybody who owns an Apple product tends to look away from because of how unbelievable their products are. Fast fashion is also another great example when it comes to turning a blind eye for a cheap and affordable product.
More info can be found here about the Apple warehouses:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract
More info can be found here about Fast Fashion and the damage it is doing to the environment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10#while-people-bought-60-more-garments-in-2014-than-in-2000-they-only-kept-the-clothes-for-half-as-long-2
I surveyed Amazon's working conditions and found that workers working in Amazon warehouses have harsh working conditions, high technical requirements, low wages, hidden safety hazards, and face dismissal at any time. Speaking of cognitive disorders, I think this is a kind of cognitive disorder. As an e-commerce empire, Amazon's working conditions are so harsh. On the other hand, Amazon is giving away Thanksgiving meals to win the hearts of the people.
I think Amazon should adjust from the inside, not the outside. There is a concept in psychology called cognitive dissonance, which refers to people's psychological tendency to maintain consistent behavior and attitudes. We can use this to formulate corresponding product rules and mechanisms to allow users to psychologically identify and like products through behavior. In Amazon's case, I am more inclined to change the behavior that Amazon can change some working conditions, make internal employees feel happier, and form a consistent internal and external brand. Regarding the brand I use, we won't stop buying completely because of internal scandals. This is from the customer's point of view, as long as it is not too much a matter of principle scandal or quality issues, we will continue to buy.
Huiwen Xu
Christopher Diaz
I have analyzed and researched Amazon for quite some time now and even did a group project on them last semester! I have found that Amazon has many problems, for starters they don't treat their warehouse workers very well, they are forced to work holidays, 60 hour workweeks and are underpaid (businessinsider,online). Amazon I feel spent some money to produce these results, just like when the powerhouse was accused of writing their own reviews. I think what Amazon did for the holidays is great but this company has had some shady stuff going on for some time. Maybe they are trying to cover up? I've known a couple corporations that were corrupt and tried to hide hence the Enron story. I think people that are intelligent will look into this matter more but for the most part most of the population will take this for face value not knowing the underlying circumstances that are present. I once left a brand, it was Tommy Hilfiger and the owner had made some controversial. I am big on integrity and character and once a brand or product deviates from what I expect to be the norm I will leave.
Businessinsider.com, Aline Cain and Asher Hamilton
Multimedia, online
2019
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employees-describe-peak-2019-2
I think that the fact that Amazon handed out free thanksgiving meals and food donations will outweigh the issues that Amazon workers are rallying over. This is because even though a majority of consumers today care more about corporate social responsibility and following a company with values, shortcuts such as handing out free meals and donations will blind the consumers. When it comes to cognitive dissonance, these donations and free meals may change the attitude of consumers who were at first angry about the injury claims. I therefore think due to these donations and free meals, some people will process this news in a way that excuses or justifies how the company treats the workers.
I have never canceled a brand due to a clash of values or adopted one because most of the companies that we often get products often have scandals and lawsuits to deal with. So I think that if I canceled a brand due to a clash of values I would be cancelling most of the brands that I need. I am however more vested in brands that are doing more good than harm in the world today.
Post a Comment